WHY WE MUST APPEAL – “Much more than registration is at stake.”

We’ve been inundated with both messages of encouragement and financial support towards our legal fees as we prepare for the next stage of our battle against deregistration by the Charities Board.

The High Court judgement has shocked many people. But, if anything, it highlights just how significant and vital our appeal is.

As Board member Bruce Logan says:

The position of the charities board (and now the High Court) is incoherent. It confuses metaphor with reality. Any discussion of the family must presuppose that it can be defined. That definition until recent times has always been accepted to be the natural or traditional family. It’s not possible to talk about alternative families, different kinds of families without first having a primary model. One cannot describe coherently different family forms without a preconceived notion of family. To suggest that one might be as good as another is irrational. Both the High Court and the Charities Board do not define the traditional family, nor any other kind of family. Without saying so it declares there is no virtue of one particular, so-called, family form over another.”

“It’s worth noting that hatred of the natural family underpins Marxism and its contemporary offshoots. The natural family, the primary educator of children, stands between the freedom of the individual and the tyrannical state.”

The deregistration of Family First’s charitable status must be resisted because much more than simple registration is at stake. The Commission’s claim that the traditional family is not the heart of a free nation is outrageous and wrong. Any kind of legal or bureaucratic action that undermines family status, function and authority will, most certainly, harm our children.”

As previously shared, we have instructed our lawyers to begin proceedings to lodge an appeal to the High Court judgement.

If the state argues that Family First should be deregistered because of their views on family and marriage, who will be next?

WHAT OTHER REGISTERED CHARITIES OPERATE IN A SIMILAR FASHION TO FAMILY FIRST?

That’s a very interesting question! The major problem with the approach of the Charities Board is that they are being inconsistent, and are picking and choosing which Charities should be registered and which should be deregistered based on subjective opinion. The High Court judge in 2015 specifically scolded the Charities Board for doing this, saying that Family First’s advocacy for the concept “…of the traditional family is analogous to organisations that have advocated for the ‘mental and moral improvement’ of society.…” and that “…Members of the Charities Board may personally disagree with the views of Family First, but at the same time recognise there is a legitimate analogy between its role and those organisations that have been recognised as charities.”.

Here’s a list of current registered charities who operate in a similar fashion to Family First.
Child Poverty Action Group
Amnesty International New Zealand Inc
Save Animals From Exploitation (S.A.F.E.)
ASH New Zealand Incorporated
NZ Drug Foundation
National Council of Women

We believe these organisations have every right to exist and be recognised as part of freedom of expression and open debate in a civil society. But there should be consistency. Why is Family First being targeted? (You may already know the answer to that rhetorical question!!)

REGISTERED CHARITIES WHO DO ADVOCACY

WHAT ARE THE POLITICIANS SAYING?

Once again, a very interesting question! See below statements made by political parties during the election campaign last year. And a very interesting quote from a Sunday Star Times feature on Family First in 2007. (Would this now be an illegal statement for a politician to say!?)

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE RESEARCH REPORTS THAT YOU PUBLISH?

The High Court judge said that our many and varied reports (listed below, and which are used extensively by community groups, schools, churches, and families) “do not constitute research; rather they advance a coherent viewpoint, buttressed by citation of published material“, but “cannot be seen as other than a series of publications promoting a cause“. They are “merely a method of presenting its advocacy to the public. It is not educational in the charitable sense.”

We find these comments offensive and insulting to the credibility of the experts who have written these reports. Once again, the same measurement is not being applied to other charities who release reports. In fact, during the court case in April, the Charities Board argued that our gender identity report had no value because the Human Rights Commission and WHO say that ‘gender identity’ ideology is confirmed, and therefore the debate is effectively over! Dream on.

Thank you for your ongoing support! As previously shared, the Board are unanimous that we continue to fight this issue because your voice and views matter and have value. We will challenge any attempt to muzzle them.

Kind regards.

Bob McCoskrie
National Director

PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A GIFT TO OUR ‘FIGHTING FUND’ Thank you for your support!

Scroll to Top
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap